Options

Capital Punishment thread

191012141518

Posts

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    let me put it to you this way:

    Would you rather be raped, or killed?

    How about having a leg amputed, or killed?


    There are a bunch of things that are disallowed from our justice system due to the eighth amendment that many would arguable say are preferable to death (as well as some with people would say are worse than death.) The fact that we do not allow these things, but still allow the killing of inmates just makes no sense.

    I'd love to see an explanation of why killing is okay but rape isn't.

    And saying thqat the killing is (supposedly) painless doesn't count. You can turn on some mood music, dim the lights, throw around rose petals, get a LOT of lube, etc., but you still can't then strap the inmate down and rape him.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    let me put it to you this way:

    Would you rather be raped, or killed?

    How about having a leg amputed, or killed?


    There are a bunch of things that are disallowed from our justice system due to the eighth amendment that many would arguable say are preferable to death (as well as some with people would say are worse than death.) The fact that we do not allow these things, but still allow the killing of inmates just makes no sense.

    I'd love to see an explanation of why killing is okay but rape isn't.

    And saying thqat the killing is (supposedly) painless doesn't count. You can turn on some mood music, dim the lights, throw around rose petals, get a LOT of lube, etc., but you still can't then strap the inmate down and rape him.

    Modern capital punishment aims to utterly remove a convict from society as humanely as possible. All efforts are made to reduce its sensationalism. Rape is torture.

    I'm opposed to capital punishment, and I find your argument to be vile and pedantic.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Simplest answer the supreme court has stated that so long as an execution is "humane" it does not violate the 8th amendment.

    Note that to violate the 8th amendment something has to be both "cruel" and "unusual" the US has never had rape as an acceptable punishment for any crime in any jurisdiction making it "cruel" and "unusual".

    Plus our methods of execution (all of them) are well established methods that do not prolong suffering or death (and instead strives to make them as quick and painless as possible) which keeps them from being "cruel" and "unusual".

    It doesn't matter what you do (you could sedate a person or knock them out ) rape is considered torture and not a valid punishment and execution is.

    From a moral "Both are bad why do we allow one and not the other?" perspective yeah it makes not one bit of sense but from a legal perspective it makes some sense (in an obtuse way)


    Damn beated

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    From a moral "Both are bad why do we allow one and not the other?" perspective yeah it makes not one bit of sense but from a legal perspective it makes some sense (in an obtuse way)

    The other reason that morally the death penalty can be seen as different is that there is a point; you remove somebody from the planet, thus insuring without doubt that they'll never hurt anybody again. Not prison guards, not fellow inmates, and certainly not anybody in the general public. Raping them, on the other hand, is just a form of torture used to punish them. Death can have a point other than punishment (or deterrent).

    I still oppose the death penalty because it can't be applied accurately or evenly in practice, but in theory it could serve a valuable purpose. Whereas rape is just barbaric and despicable.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Of course, if your reason for supporting the death penalty is that "evil motherfuckers should pay," then that's pretty barbaric and despicable as well. IMHO, of course.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I support the death penalty because it can be opted out of look at New York they still have a capital punishment statute and don't exercise it.

    I believe that the majority of citizens in this country feel a need for a punishment to deal with the most heinous of crimes (murder one gets you life in many jurisdictions and there are crimes that are worse than that) and that when they no longer feel the need it will be phased out.

    Until that time we can work on the problems of capital punishment so less innocent people face the risk of execution.

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I support the death penalty because it can be opted out of look at New York they still have a capital punishment statute and don't exercise it.

    I believe that the majority of citizens in this country feel a need for a punishment to deal with the most heinous of crimes (murder one gets you life in many jurisdictions and there are crimes that are worse than that) and that when they no longer feel the need it will be phased out.

    Until that time we can work on the problems of capital punishment so less innocent people face the risk of execution.

    How is the ability to opt out of it a reason to support it? It's not like the convicted criminal is the one with that option.

    And again, one of the big problems with capital punishment is that it is effectively impossible to make it only kill guilty people 100% of the time. "Less of a problem" still means innocent people dying when there's essentially no need.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    It is a state's right to decide whether or not it has the death penalty there isn't a single state where a population would be forced to accept a capital punishment statute.

    You need a legal reason to remove a legal right (and there really aren't that many that are likely to succeed)

    I support its existence because is still has legitimacy and popular support (if people didn't support it the state could repeal it or never use it like New York or Massachusetts)

    I'm fine with the idea of capital punishment (on a moral and legal level) i just think it needs to be fixed to prevent many of those deaths.

    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.

    I'm all for things that can actually be accomplished.

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.
    This sentence does not make sense to me.

    Quid on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.
    This sentence does not make sense to me.
    It makes perfect sense to the person who posted it. Why isn't that enough for you, Quid?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    It is a state's right to decide whether or not it has the death penalty there isn't a single state where a population would be forced to accept a capital punishment statute.

    You need a legal reason to remove a legal right (and there really aren't that many that are likely to succeed)

    I support its existence because is still has legitimacy and popular support (if people didn't support it the state could repeal it or never use it like New York or Massachusetts)

    I'm fine with the idea of capital punishment (on a moral and legal level) i just think it needs to be fixed to prevent many of those deaths.

    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.

    I'm all for things that can actually be accomplished.

    Why are state's rights so frequently brought up to defend morally unsavory laws? I'm not saying that the death penalty isn't technically legal. Of course it is. That's the fucking problem.

    I'm by no means a lawyer, and I'm relatively clueless on legal matters in general, but it seems like to simple paths could be either the Supreme Court ruling against it as cruel and unusual, or amending the constitution.

    One issue that this thread is dealing with is that people, such as yourself, are "fine with the idea of capital punishment" on a moral level. This strikes me as very bad, akin to someone being "fine with the idea of torture" on a moral level, and is one of the reasons we are having this discussion.

    Finally, there's this problem of people not having personal convictions, and simply hewing to what has "legitimacy and popular support". I don't think it's necessarily true (as in, I don't think you actually have no personal convictions), but it seems like a kind of lazy intellectual shorthand for not wanting to expose yourself on a position you haven't put much thought into. It's pretty much intellectually bankrupt as a reason to support or not support something (in many cases). For example, assuming that, say, the U.S. still supported slavery both legally and popularly (legitimacy and popular support!), would you still give it your blessing? All the reasoning for your current position exists in that context.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Many countries do not have capital punishment at all.

    I'd say it can actually be accomplished.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.
    This sentence does not make sense to me.

    Translation: "If we got rid of the death penalty, innocent executions would go to zero, but it's not likely we'll ever get rid of the death penalty."

    Medopine on
  • Options
    Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I'm by no means a lawyer, and I'm relatively clueless on legal matters in general, but it seems like to simple paths could be either the Supreme Court ruling against it as cruel and unusual, or amending the constitution.

    Speaking of which, was there not a time in the 1970's where capital punishment was ruled as being unconstitutional by the SCOTUS?

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Yes in the 60/70's the Supreme court found that capital punishment was unconstitutional in its application.

    Unlike now where certain offenses make you eligible for Capital Punishment but the prosecutor doesn't have to put it on the table and the jury can give you life in prison (which most do, Texas is very high because juries aren't instructed that they can do that :x )

    Back in those days if you did x crime you got the death penalty no factors to consider, no jury able to give you a lighter sentence, you went on death row.

    Charles Manson and his family got saved thanks to that.

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    Yes not having a death penalty reduces the number of innocent people executed to zero but that's not likely.
    This sentence does not make sense to me.
    I think he's saying it's not very likely that the death penalty will be abolished.

    Edit: Beat'd

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Because a person getting what they deserve serves no practical purpose whatsoever.

    what do you mean when you say practical? when a state builds a public sculpture, is any practical purpose being served?
    It's basically killing someone for the sake of killing them. If we do that, how are we any different than the murderer?

    due process.
    Every person on Earth has some basic, inalienable human rights. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away, no matter what. Nobody can -- or at least should be able to -- decide that someone doesn't "deserve" their right to live anymore and take it away from them. To do so is to succumb to barbarism.

    i dont believe in "inalienable" human rights. i dont even know what that means in light of the fact that i can violate every one of them.
    people keep bringing up deterrence issues even though i have made it clear that deterrence is only one beneficial side effect.

    Yes, it is a beneficial side effect... one that doesn't exist. It has been proven that the existence of a death penalty does not lead to a decrease in crime. On the contrary, it increases the intensity of the crime, because once a person figures out that their life is forfeit anyway, they'll try to make the most of it.

    i was speaking of the penal system generally. i know that the death penalty does not have clear superior deterrence effects when compared to lwop.
    the reason for killing a serial murderer is because he is a horrible fucking person and he deserves it (as determined by a judge and jury). there really isnt more to it than that.

    I'm sorry that your personal code is so shallow and one-dimensional that the only thing you consider here is whether someone deserves something or not.

    um, okay. giving something to make them happy is also shallow and one dimensional and i do it all the time.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    because people should get what they deserve.

    I don't think there's anything near an effective means to reach that conclusion with our present understanding of the world. It seems to me, what someone "deserves" may simply be a happy childhood with loving parents and a chance to do it all over again. We obviously aren't able to give anyone that sort of thing, but it hardly seems like the alternative should be "suffer and die".

    as i believe in no gods, im comfortable with reality and how society has sculptured the penal code.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    no, enjoyment is the sole reason. exercise can be done at home or in a gym. why do you want to avoid concrete or break up the monotony? a park really is no different from a cookie. cookies even have caloric value. anyway, we're getting off topic.

    the point is, the main reason why we do something for (or against) someone is not to encourage other people to act in the same way. the main reason why we do something is to make a person feel good (or bad).

    are you guys really disputing this?

    Absolutely. the reasons for creating Central Park, for example, if memory serves, were rather cynical, and the arguments in favor had a similar flavor to those for eugenics.

    Your arguing against people doing things to promote the activity in others makes it appear that you are ignoring the concept of a role model, and your concept of the state as an arbiter of meting out joy or suffering is both immature and rather chilling.

    im not ignoring it. i clearly said that being a role model is not the main reason for our doing anything. we do things for their direct effects. side effects are just that: side effects. happiness and suffering are the main effects. incentive and deterrence are the side effects.

    it's really not that hard.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    keth wrote:
    because people should get what they deserve.

    They "deserve" a chance to make amends for their crimes and for rehabilitation.

    Can you explain why what you think they deserve is any more or less valid than what I think they deserve? I mean, with death some sadists get some short lived satisfaction of someone getting their so called "just desserts", with rehabilitation and amends we get another productive member of society as well as the victims or the victims family recieving compensation.

    And before you start spouting off about criminals getting released without being rehabilitated, that just shows how the system should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment, so that people are not being released before they are ready to be productive members of society again.

    what i think a serial murderer deserves has no validity at all. what a state legislature, a judge and 12 jurors think a serial murderer deserves is the only thing that matters. and what the collective state thinks a serial murderer deserves is far more valid than what you think.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    although i think this is a very good point, im not actually sure how to respond to it, except to say that i think you limit what you think government's purpose is far more than i do.

    public organs provide happiness (whether it be directly through welfare programs or through the building of parks and fountains). im not sure why you say it's not the state's responsibility to ensure people receive both tangible and intangible benefits and harms, but i simply disagree.

    Your analogy is fucked, because fountains are not a function of the state. The constitution - the organs of governance and justice - are not comparable to urban planning. The simple fact of the matter is that justice is not about making people feel good. It can have the side effect of making people feel good, but a judge is not beholden to the emotions of the public - she/he makes decisions based on facts, and tangible consequences.

    you keep stating it as if it were some kind of well known law of the universe, but i keep disagreeing. i have stated this many, many times. the penal code exists for four main reasons: (i) retribution, (ii) deterrence, (iii) detention, (iv) rehabilitation (not necessarily in that order). which you weigh more heavily doesnt matter really. but you shouldnt pretend that any of them dont exist.
    Welfare programs stop people from starving. They aren't tiki parties for the poor. They have tangible social utility.

    i know. that's why i said the gov't provides tangible benefits, like welfare and intangible benefits, like fountains or sculptures or parks.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    actually, im not killing anyone. through a lengthy and heavily appealed process, the state is acting as the final arbitrator of justice. because nothing is perfect, sometimes that process causes deaths of people who rightly should not be sentenced to die, even under that state's own rules. they are sacrifices, just as victims of car accidents are sacrifices.

    See, here's where I don't get your argument. You say that "people need to get what they deserve" is the keystone of your moral system of laws. But, you're also quite prepared to say "but sometimes people get what they don't deserve, and while that's a shame, I'm prepared to live with that". You can't have it both ways! Either you want everyone to face your idea of natural justice - and that means never accepting an unjust result - or you're resigned to injustice and the inherent futility of the idea of "people need to get what they deserve."

    wait, wait, wait, since when have we ever in the history of mankind ever been able to do something perfectly?

    should innocents get punished? no. should criminals get punished? yes. does that mean innocents may also get punished sometimes? sure. should we nevertheless have a penal system? yes.

    zse, your stance necessitates that we can't even have a penal system in the first place.
    Also, for the record - for someone's death to be a sacrifice it (a) needs to be in the name of a cause (which inherently means it needs to be an intentional act - which accidental auto-death hardly qualifies as), and (b) needs to actually bring about a change. Killing an innocent will not bring about a change if - as you've repeatedly asserted - deterrence is a happy side-effect that only sometimes pops up. So, you can't really call killing innocent people a sacrifice in any way. It's either an accident, or murder - and because you acknowledge the fact that under your system innocents will die, and you've averted to that fact, I'd argue that you're endorsing state-sponsored murder. Which would make you a dick - if I actually thought that you'd logically thought your position through.

    im really not sure why we keep missing each other. are you being intentionally dense?

    cause - punishment of the wicked
    sacrifice - those who were not wicked enough

    cause - mechanized transportation
    sacrifice - innocents who are killed in accidents

    it's a sacrifice because we know it will happen, but we still push on for the cause.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    and this is where we disagree. rewarding good behavior and punishing bad is not only about the incentive effect. it is also about the actual happiness of the person being rewarded or the actual suffering of the person being punished. im not only concerned with how well society functions. the happiness and suffering of people matters to me as well.

    The happiness or suffering of the person, though, has no real logical basis. It doesn't serve ANY purpose at all; you just keep saying that they "deserve" it.

    I mean, could you possibly be appealing MORE to emotion?

    i think you got caught up with the logic / emotion vs. reasonable / irrational mix up as well. when i was using logical, i was using it as reasonable as opposed to irrational.

    baking cookies for grandma to make her happy - emotion or logic / reason or unreason?

    whatever it is, people getting what they deserve is like baking cookies for grandma, except that cookies = lethal injection and grandma = hideous serial child molester murderer.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    actually, im not killing anyone. through a lengthy and heavily appealed process, the state is acting as the final arbitrator of justice. because nothing is perfect, sometimes that process causes deaths of people who rightly should not be sentenced to die, even under that state's own rules. they are sacrifices, just as victims of car accidents are sacrifices.

    So, while we're discussing all of these sacrifices to this dark lord of yours, you still haven't answered what I've asked you before.

    Would YOU be willing to be one of these sacrifices? If you were wrongfully convicted and sentanced to death, your appeals were in vain, and the day finally came, would you be walking that long mile, saying to yourself "well, at least I'm dying for something I believe in."?

    actually, i would.

    the problem being, truly innocent people are almost never sacrificed. it's like this dark secret that no one wants to mention: the people who get on death row are there for a reason. even if they are "innocent" of some specific crime or even if they could have gotten off on a technicality, these arent "good" people in the traditional sense. not most of them, anyway.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial, look.

    Until our justice system reduces its margin of error to zero, irreversible punishments should be avoided at all costs.

    You can argue that the justice system will never be perfect, but currently this is not a big problem since if we find out that a person is in fact innocent, we release them and compensate them in some manner.

    The problem with your stance of "I'm willing to sacrifice a few innocent people for the sake of many", like you are saying above, is that you are failing to recognize that human life is infinitely valuable.

    Ten lives aren't move valuable than one life, because infinity times ten is still infinity.

    That is why you are so fucked up; you're trying to arbitrarily put a value on human life. Whereas the fact is, even if only one in one hundred million death row cases ends up to be innocent, it still isn't good enough. We can't simply take that as granted, because doing so takes a shit all over our civilized ideals.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The other point of course is, supposing our justice system was biased for decisiveness rather then innocence (I am honestly not convinced it is a lot of the time), there is absolutely no reason to think this would actually have any appreciable effect on the crime rate.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    dont we care about the fact that this person did a "bad" act?

    you're missinga KEY thing here:

    WHY do we care?

    That is to say, there needs to be a reason for our actions; we can't just rationalize them with some sense of "justice" or "ballance" when there is no true basis behind them.

    "Karma" should not be the basis of our legal system.

    my theory about why we care is probably not important to you or to this discussion, but i'll give it to you anyway.

    we care because we like rational worlds where things go the way you would expect them to. when a man does a good deed, we hope he receives a good deed in return. when a man does a bad deed, even if it is secret from the world, we hope he is punished for his wickedness.

    i think it's false to pretend like the desire for justice and balance are things that have "no basis behind them". i would agree that they are not mathematically logical (unless they are axiomatic, which i doubt most would agree), but being repaid x for x makes sense to us in ways that being repaid 10x for x doesnt.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    my theory about why we care is probably not important to you or to this discussion, but i'll give it to you anyway.

    we care because we like rational worlds where things go the way you would expect them to. when a man does a good deed, we hope he receives a good deed in return. when a man does a bad deed, even if it is secret from the world, we hope he is punished for his wickedness.

    i think it's false to pretend like the desire for justice and balance are things that have "no basis behind them". i would agree that they are not mathematically logical (unless they are axiomatic, which i doubt most would agree), but being repaid x for x makes sense to us in ways that being repaid 10x for x doesnt.

    Ketherial, almost everyone who has managed to exact vengeance on someone would say that it wasn't worth it, and that it brought them no peace as a result. It's a rather naive perspective that people absolutely want revenge. It's a delicious concept, but it's practicalities and results tend not to be.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial, no offense man, but you scare me.

    Capital punishment isn't justice at all. It's just revenge. The fact that it makes some people feel better to see a criminal executed does not mean justice was done - it only means those people have the morality of a child. I'm probably going way further than some people in this thread, because not only do I reject capital punishment, I reject any form of retributive justice - the idea of "giving someone what they deserve" is completely and utterly false. To stress that: the state (and all morally reasoning people) do not have the right to do anything to someone because it's what they deserve.

    When we give a speeder a speeding ticket, we should do it because that will deter a reasonable person from speeding. We should not do it to "punish" the speeder. When we lock up a murderer, we should do it because that individual poses a threat to society. Not to "punish" the murderer. The very idea of "punishment" relies on the moral system of an 8-year-old, where doing "bad" things gets you a spanking and doing "good" things gets you a cookie.

    Believe me, I understand the animal instinct, the sense of righteous justice, that sense of karma that comes from seeing a serial rapist get what you consider his just deserts. The fact that it makes you feel good, however, doesn't mean it is right.

    no offense taken. i find it interesting though that you would find the desire to have balance in the world "scary". do you find the concept of religion "scary"? i dont believe in any religion, but i hardly find it to be "scary".

    calling capital punishment revenge as opposed to justice is just using words. when you get right down to it, the concept is identical. what exactly does justice mean? most definitions attempt to refer to righteousness, but that's a synonym, not a description. personally, i can't find more to justice than the base concept of "fairness" (which is by the way, not a synonym), receipt of deserved punishment or reward.

    i also find it interesting that many consider justice to be an immature or childish concept. whether or not that's true, im not sure why the concept of childishness is thrown around as if were necessarily pejorative. unconditional love is childish but we often consider it one of the greatest unfulfilled goals of humankind. fairness or justice may be "childish", but im not sure if that means anything more than just that. in other words, being childish in this instance is perfectly fine.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    You know, I am a law-abiding, tax-paying, society-contributing citizen. I think I do pretty much what I can to contribute to society, and so I should get what I deserve.

    Where is my state-sanctioned blowjob?

    if that is what society deemed you were deserving of, i think there would be institutions that would satisfy such claim.

    as it is, paying your taxes and abiding by laws means you deserve a functioning city, with both human and physical infrastructure that allows you to conduct your life generally freely.

    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Sounds like communism.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    i know, but he's wrong. to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    hmm? how is an "appropriate response to what the person did" any different from "getting what he deserves as determined by the state"?

    are you guys misunderstanding my position cause i see the two as identical.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    ketherial wrote:
    i dont believe in "inalienable" human rights.

    . . .

    Well then, there isn't much of a point to having this discussion, is there?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ketherial wrote:
    i dont believe in "inalienable" human rights.

    . . .

    Well then, there isn't much of a point to having this discussion, is there?
    There is, because I don't necessarily believe in them either - or at least - I don't like calling them that.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ketherial wrote:
    i dont believe in "inalienable" human rights.
    I bet you don't like the Constitution very much, do you?

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    i know, but he's wrong. to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    hmm? how is an "appropriate response to what the person did" any different from "getting what he deserves as determined by the state"?

    are you guys misunderstanding my position cause i see the two as identical.

    You're just being dense, now.

    Society has a mechanism for deciding what the appropriate response to crime is. The justice system, as set up by the constitution/legislature. That system has the final legal say about what happens when you do something wrong.

    You're saying we can throw out the conclusions of that, just because "they were probably on deathrow for a reason anyway."

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial, look.

    Until our justice system reduces its margin of error to zero, irreversible punishments should be avoided at all costs.

    You can argue that the justice system will never be perfect, but currently this is not a big problem since if we find out that a person is in fact innocent, we release them and compensate them in some manner.

    The problem with your stance of "I'm willing to sacrifice a few innocent people for the sake of many", like you are saying above, is that you are failing to recognize that human life is infinitely valuable.

    i disagree that human life is infinitely valuable. if i were to try to hurt your family (but not actually kill them) and the only way you could stop me would be to kill me, would you kill me? if my life is infinitely valuable then it is certainly more valuable than a couple of grevious injuries right? you would sacrifice both arms to keep me (a raving lunatic murderer) alive wouldnt you? because if you really believed what you wrote, then you would.
    Ten lives aren't move valuable than one life, because infinity times ten is still infinity.

    ten lives are generally more valuable than one.
    That is why you are so fucked up; you're trying to arbitrarily put a value on human life. Whereas the fact is, even if only one in one hundred million death row cases ends up to be innocent, it still isn't good enough. We can't simply take that as granted, because doing so takes a shit all over our civilized ideals.

    dont feed me bullshit. would you kill a man to stop him from raping your sister or mother?

    life is not always invaluable and the fact that my mother is not raped is more valuable to me than the lives of 1,000 rapists trying to rape her.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial, almost everyone who has managed to exact vengeance on someone would say that it wasn't worth it, and that it brought them no peace as a result. It's a rather naive perspective that people absolutely want revenge. It's a delicious concept, but it's practicalities and results tend not to be.

    strangely, i have the opposite experiences with people around me. exacting revenge on a terrible boss who would sexually harass her was one of the most satisfying possible experiences a friend of mine has ever had.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Sounds like communism.

    actually i love communism in theory. i acknowledge that it would be difficult in reality.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The problem is this, Keth. You're trying to substitute your judgment of people for what society should do in redress of crimes, and fine: no one can really tell you not to do that.

    But you can't turn around and say that your view is actually supported by the justice system, or even really that it should be.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    i know, but he's wrong. to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    hmm? how is an "appropriate response to what the person did" any different from "getting what he deserves as determined by the state"?

    are you guys misunderstanding my position cause i see the two as identical.

    You're just being dense, now.

    Society has a mechanism for deciding what the appropriate response to crime is. The justice system, as set up by the constitution/legislature. That system has the final legal say about what happens when you do something wrong.

    You're saying we can throw out the conclusions of that, just because "they were probably on deathrow for a reason anyway."

    no, im saying that society has decided that a serial murderer deserves to be put to death and i agree. well at least most of society (assuming congressmen and state legislatures are elected based on the best approximation of a majority we can get).

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial, look.

    Until our justice system reduces its margin of error to zero, irreversible punishments should be avoided at all costs.

    You can argue that the justice system will never be perfect, but currently this is not a big problem since if we find out that a person is in fact innocent, we release them and compensate them in some manner.

    The problem with your stance of "I'm willing to sacrifice a few innocent people for the sake of many", like you are saying above, is that you are failing to recognize that human life is infinitely valuable.

    i disagree that human life is infinitely valuable. if i were to try to hurt your family (but not actually kill them) and the only way you could stop me would be to kill me, would you kill me? if my life is infinitely valuable then it is certainly more valuable than a couple of grevious injuries right? you would sacrifice both arms to keep me (a raving lunatic murderer alive) wouldnt you?
    Ten lives aren't move valuable than one life, because infinity times ten is still infinity.

    ten lives are generally more valuable than one.
    That is why you are so fucked up; you're trying to arbitrarily put a value on human life. Whereas the fact is, even if only one in one hundred million death row cases ends up to be innocent, it still isn't good enough. We can't simply take that as granted, because doing so takes a shit all over our civilized ideals.

    dont feed me bullshit. would you kill a man to stop him from raping your sister or mother?

    life is not always invaluable and the fact that my mother is not raped is more valuable to me than the lives of 1,000 rapists trying to rape her.

    Your thinking is flawed, because in the hypothetical scenarios you suggested, I would act on impulse, which would be based on my emotions, not my logic. My decision to save my family from harm, and my decision in self-preservation, are all decisions made on emotion.

    And that is the entire point behind our justice system: it is not built on emotion. It is not affected by emotion. It is neutral, and it uses cold logic. When you say something like "I support capital punishment because I believe in people getting what they deserve", you're arguing on the basis of your emotions, not your logic.

    ege02 on
Sign In or Register to comment.